9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised in the departmental appeal in para 6 of the said order. Before dealing with the order of the CWT(A), certain facts may be stated. 3. The assessee created three trusts for the benefit of her minor daughters on 29th July, 1977 by gifting to each of the three trusts 8,333 shares of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. These trusts were named after the assessee's three daughters Anjali, Gouri and Varsha. The total number of shares gifted to all the three trusts were 25,000. The WTO held that the provisions of s. 4(1)(a)(iii) of the WT Act would be attracted because the assessee had transferred these shares for the benefit of her three minor daughters. The assessee relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Yogindra N. Mafatlal vs. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Prasad. We find that neither the WTO nor the CWT(A) has discussed the provisions of the trust deed nor have these authorities noticed the aforementioned decisions of the Bombay High Court although the order of the CWT(A) was passed on 23rd May, 1988. From what is stated in the order of the WTO, it would appear that the assessee had created three trusts on one single day by giving to each trust equal number of shares she held in J.K. Syrthetics Ltd. and the total number of shares so gifted were 25,000. These facts are similar to the facts of the case decided by the Bombay High Court in CWT vs. Yogindra Prasad N. Mafatlal (1988) 67 CTR (Bom) 197 :(1988) 170 ITR 648 (Bom). In that case also, the assessee had by three indentures of trust s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the same reasons, to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue." These observations, in our opinion, are applicable to the facts of the present case and decide the issue squarely in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We would, therefore, relying on the aforementioned two decisions of the Bombay High Court, hold that the provisions of s. 4(1)(a)(iii) of the IT Act were correctly invoked by the WTO. We would further hold that the decision of the CWT(A) is not correct inasmuch as the CWT(A) has relied on a decision under the IT Act relating to the provisions of s. 64 when the decision of the Bombay High Court under the WT Act concerning the interpretation of s. 4(1)(a)(iii) was available and not noticed by h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbay High Court which is binding on him as well as on the Tribunal and which decides the issue against the assessee. Sec. 18C(1) prescribes the procedure when an assessee claims that identical question of law is pending before the High Court or Supreme Court in his case for another assessment year. We find that, in the present case, identical questions of law are not pending before the High Court. The Bombay High Court has pronounced a decision on the subject in the case of Radhadevi Mohatta. We have perused the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's case for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 in WTA Nos. 694 695 (Bom)/84. It would appear that the declaration filed under s. 18C(1) of the WT Act stated that identical question of law arose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
